So could we say that a momentum is being allowed to develop? And there is an order within that momentum?

Of course, I have never stated otherwise. The order of momentum would be said, IMO, in terms of vipassana nanas, starting from the first insight onward.

Couldn’t we say “meditation” and your “consideration” are equal?

Well, I would'nt call wise consideration or vipassana bhavana an activity. They arise by conditions, not because someone tries to do it. Yoniso manasikara doesn't arise because I decide: now I shall have wise yonisomanasikara. That is the gist of the argument so far. The difference comes when someone considers vipassana bhavana to mean an activiter called meditation that one can actively do.

pt1 wrote: My point is exemplified in the following attempt at impersoinal Abhidhamma-speak:

"i don't have a choice over my views. They are conditioned, as any other sankhara dhamma. It was different 10 years ago. It was different 10 months and 10 days ago. Never really the same. It changes as considering over dhammas occurs again and again, by conditions."http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 80#p230829

tiltbillings wrote: You did vipassana practice for 10 years, so you should understand this and you should understand the reason for doing such a practice and what comes from it.

Until I realized that vipassana bhavana doesn't something that we can actively do, but only moments of right understanding accumulated by conditions, as I've said many times here, and that you seemingly don't agree, which is fine.

So I understand what you mean because I have done that too, I just don't agree that sati-sampajana is the same thing than actively paying attention to a situation. In my understanding, it is rather understanding which arises and approach a reality with sati, which is called sati- sampajana. Without the element of right understanding of reality, it is not sati of satipatthana, and we can not actively make it to arise and maintain it. Understanding of its conditions, however, is a factor that can condition it to arise.

dhamma follower wrote:They arise by conditions, not because someone tries to do it. Yoniso manasikara doesn't arise because I decide: now I shall have wise yonisomanasikara.

Nobody says that things arise without conditions. The discussion is whether deliberate practice IS one of the conditions for it. Of course if one does not have all the necessary conditions, one can't will Yoniso Manasikaro or whatever.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

An observation which may help in understanding why your thoughts are being met with such resistance...

There appears to be a concern that by putting everything down to "conditions", which in turn have their own conditions, which have their own conditions etc... that this mode of engagement is discounting or ignoring the role of intention (cetana).

By not accounting for cetana (or perhaps insisting that cetana itself arises on account of conditions), you're discounting the notion of free will and projecting a form of fatalism. Whereas fatalism is usually depicted in terms of projecting the future from the present... what this Abhidhamma-speak and insistence on impersonal conditions is doing, is to project a form of fatalism from the past to the present.

Perhaps this is why the Buddha taught things like kamma, and not things like Abhidhamma?

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

pt1 wrote: My point is exemplified in the following attempt at impersonal Abhidhamma-speak:

"i don't have a choice over my views. They are conditioned, as any other sankhara dhamma. It was different 10 years ago. It was different 10 months and 10 days ago. Never really the same. It changes as considering over dhammas occurs again and again, by conditions."http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 80#p230829

Tilt, isn't choice also conditioned?

Of course choice is conditioned, but in that choice being choice, the interesting thing is that there is, in fact, choice, which means you do have a choice “over” your views. If there were no choice over your views, kamma would be meaningless. And you neatly illustrate here the serious problem with this “ultimate reality” impersonal Abhidhamma-speak.

dhamma follower wrote:

tiltbillings wrote: You did vipassana practice for 10 years, so you should understand this and you should understand the reason for doing such a practice and what comes from it.

Until I realized that vipassana bhavana doesn't something that we can actively do, but only moments of right understanding accumulated by conditions, as I've said many times here, and that you seemingly don't agree, which is fine.

And you seem not to pay any attention to what I say. Vipassana meditation is not a matter forcing vipassana; rather, it is a skillful way of cultivating the conditions that give rise to insights. Meditation is something we can choose to do, and it is something that the Buddha repeatedly and strongly advocated we do choose to do.

So I understand what you mean because I have done that too

It seems not to be the case.

I just don't agree that sati-sampajana is the same thing than actively paying attention to a situation.

It is the cultivation of a constancy of attention coupled with concentration that allows for one to train oneself, as the Buddha taught (Ud 1.10) in such a way that: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.'

In my understanding, it is rather understanding which arises and approach a reality with sati, which is called sati- sampajana. Without the element of right understanding of reality, it is not sati of satipatthana, and we can not actively make it to arise and maintain it. Understanding of its conditions, however, is a factor that can condition it to arise.

Intellectual understanding has an important role to play, but if one does not actually do what is necessary to actually see “reality,” as the Buddha taught, all the intellectual “right understanding” is of limited value. Hoping for something to arise because we have amassed an intellectual understanding might work to some degree, but it is not what the Buddha taught. He taught much more based upon our ability to choose, to act, to deliberately cultivate those factors that give rise to insight/vipassana.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

An observation which may help in understanding why your thoughts are being met with such resistance...

There appears to be a concern that by putting everything down to "conditions", which in turn have their own conditions, which have their own conditions etc... that this mode of engagement is discounting or ignoring the role of intention (cetana).

By not accounting for cetana (or perhaps insisting that cetana itself arises on account of conditions), you're discounting the notion of free will and projecting a form of fatalism. Whereas fatalism is usually depicted in terms of projecting the future from the present... what this Abhidhamma-speak and insistence on impersonal conditions is doing, is to project a form of fatalism from the past to the present.

Perhaps this is why the Buddha taught things like kamma, and not things like Abhidhamma?

Metta,Retro.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

retrofuturist wrote:There appears to be a concern that by putting everything down to "conditions", which in turn have their own conditions, which have their own conditions etc... that this mode of engagement is discounting or ignoring the role of intention (cetana).

By not accounting for cetana (or perhaps insisting that cetana itself arises on account of conditions), you're discounting the notion of free will and projecting a form of fatalism. Whereas fatalism is usually depicted in terms of projecting the future from the present... what this Abhidhamma-speak and insistence on impersonal conditions is doing, is to project a form of fatalism from the past to the present.

Hello Retro,

Is the view that "cetana arises on account of conditions" and that "'free will' is an illusion" necessarily a view of fatalism?I am asking this because I believe: intention arises due to conditions, and that in ultimate sense 'free will' is an illusion; yet it is by using right intention that we have to further develop wisdom, make effort to follow the 8-fold path and realize this truth. To me it appears that this is the middle way the Buddha is teaching. I could be wrong though, so want to know how others understand it.

SamKR wrote:Is the view that "cetana arises on account of conditions" and that "'free will' is an illusion" necessarily a view of fatalism?I am asking this because I believe: intention arises due to conditions, and that in ultimate sense 'free will' is an illusion; yet it is by using right intention that we have to further develop wisdom, make effort to follow the 8-fold path and realize this truth. To me it appears that this is the middle way the Buddha is teaching. I could be wrong though, so want to know how others understand it.

Perhaps if you want to pick that topic up, this might be a good place for it...

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

tiltbillings wrote:In other words, what was utterly dismissed was the traditional metta practices as we see in the suttas and the Visuddhimagga that talks about deliberately cultivating metta.

Absolutely not. We believe that there have been many great meditators that used jhana as a basis for insight. Deliberate meditation is not the problem at all, wrong concentration is. Jhana is a very high kusala. Obtaining it, and even attaining access concentration is extremely rare as the Visuddhimagga distinctly points out. Many times people take attachment as wholesome when trying to develop samatha and only develop wrong concentration because of it, this is of no help at all. People can also take attachment for metta, or other unwholesome mental factors as wholesome and so on. If the right wholesome cetasikas aren't present, there is no eight-fold-path present at a given time. Just because one is sitting attempting to focus on an object does not mean one is cultivating Right Concentration at all. As the texts make clear, no one at this time has the ability to master jhana (even the first jhana) to use it as a basis for insight, therefore thinking they are developing Right Concentration when they attempt samatha is rather wrong. It's just clinging, it's not detachment. It takes a very developed kind of panna to develop samatha. For example, if you enjoy watching TV, you cannot develop samatha bhavana to the level of jhana because you do not see the drawback in sense-desires enough (likewise a commentary states that monks who use money are incapable of attaining jhana). Only when you are truly detached and not forcing it can you develop samatha.

It's now unlocked... (in the interests of stopping this current topic becoming a "tail chaser" too!)

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Virgo wrote: Deliberate meditation is not the problem at all, wrong concentration is.

Wrong concentration, and what might that be? Wrong based upon what?

Obtaining it, and even attaining access concentration is extremely rare as the Visuddhimagga distinctly points out.

Quote the passage, please.

Many times people take attachment as wholesome when trying to develop samatha and only develop wrong concentration because of it, this is of no help at all. People can also take attachment for metta, or other unwholesome mental factors as wholesome and so on. If the right wholesome cetasikas aren't present, there is no eight-fold-path present at a given time.

Now here is the problem with your position, the assumption that everything must be perfect before meditation can be entered upon, and everything else is wrong meditation. What suttas actually support your position?

Just because one is sitting attempting to focus on an object does not mean one is cultivating Right Concentration at all.

And it does not mean that it wrong concentration, nor does it mean that it cannot become right concentration.

As the texts make clear, no one at this time has the ability to master jhana (even the first jhana) to use it as a basis for insight, therefore thinking they are developing Right Concentration when they attempt samatha is rather wrong.

Show us a sutta that states that, which brings us to:

Virgo wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:In other words, what was utterly dismissed was the traditional metta practices as we see in the suttas and the Visuddhimagga that talks about deliberately cultivating metta.

Absolutely not. We believe that there have been many great meditators that used jhana as a basis for insight.

You make my point. In the talk you linked the triumphalist smugness of the all the participants in that talk towards those who practice metta meditation finds its roots in this, it would seem.

It's just clinging, it's not detachment.

And here is your failure: you don't know what is in the heart/minds of those doing meditation. You have not a clue, and even Sujin says in that talk that you do not have a clue, but you -- and even she -- makes the serious mistake of assuming that you know. You do not.

It takes a very developed kind of panna to develop samatha.

Cart before the horse. I'll go with suttas

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Well, I would'nt call wise consideration or vipassana bhavana an activity. They arise by conditions, not because someone tries to do it. Yoniso manasikara doesn't arise because I decide: now I shall have wise yonisomanasikara. That is the gist of the argument so far. The difference comes when someone considers vipassana bhavana to mean an activiter called meditation that one can actively do.

Hi dhamma followerSo when you said "I would not be able to assert to myself that her views are right if there had not been enough consideration from my own part." So that consideration was "Yoniso manasikara" and that "Yoniso manasikara" happened because the right conditions were there? It was not an activity? Amd the "consideration" was not touched or tainted?

Virgo wrote:Absolutely not. We believe that there have been many great meditators that used jhana as a basis for insight.

Hi VirgoWho is the "We"?

The Sujin followers, I would guess, given that the talk linked by Virgo was a Q&A with Sujin and her followers, they believe stuff like what Virgo has written in his msgs.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Mr Man wrote:It seems like rather an odd colective belief to hold. There appears to be very strong groupthink amongst the Sujin followers here.

That impression is certainly reinforced by the linked Q&A with Sujin.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

robertk wrote:Possibly some of the students of Sujin study Abhidhamma, there might be a flavor of that in their thinking?

So their study is conditioning their view? What is the motivation or movement towards study? Is it different to the movement towards meditation? Is it being driven by different forces? Is there a higher intention?

robertk wrote:I wonder have you ever met any other people that have similar ideas to a teacher? Or would you say this is a unique phenomena?